The Dangerously Limited Foreign Policy Discourse of the Democratic
Candidates
Thursday, 26 November 2015 00:00 By Peter Bloom, Truthout | Op-Ed
From left: Sen. Bernie Sanders, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Martin O'Malley
take the stage for the Democratic presidential debate at Drake University in
Des Moines, Iowa, November 14, 2015. The Democratic candidates have failed
to offer any truly progressive response to the Paris attacks. (Photo: Ruth
Fremson / The New York Times)
The terrorist attacks in Paris have reverberated across the globe. As tragic
as these events were, they also provide an opportunity to change how US
leaders approach the "war on terror."
In the United States, the most recent Democratic presidential debate offered
candidates the chance to articulate a less militaristic, progressive foreign
policy vision. Their failure to do so reflects the dangerously narrow limits
of "acceptable" US political discourse.
Over the past year, the US has experienced a dramatic upsurge in progressive
politics. A key issue for both Republican and Democratic voters has been
rising economic inequality and the political influence of corporations.
From the left, Senator Bernie Sanders has challenged centrist Hillary
Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, calling for nothing less
than a "political revolution." As a self-proclaimed democratic socialist, he
is trying to build a broad-based popular movement to transform the country's
rigged economy by taking on the power of the billionaire class.
Progressivism at Home and Abroad?
Sanders' progressivism has failed to extend, though, to foreign policy.
Sanders has importantly called climate change the country's greatest
national security threat. Yet he has said little in depth about how his
presidency would revolutionize the United States' role in the world.
Instead he has blamed the growth of terrorism on the Iraqi invasion - which
he voted against. This critique, however, is not a substitute for a
socialist or even an informed progressive account of the reasons for 21st
century terrorism and how it can best be combatted.
When pushed to articulate such an account, he refers back to using the
military budget more effectively and having Arab countries "put more boots
on the ground." Just as worryingly, he has stated that he would continue to
deploy drone attacks, themselves responsible for killing over a 1,000
innocent civilians by some estimates.
Not surprisingly, Hillary Clinton has maintained the same hardline positions
as a candidate that she took as secretary of state. While domestically
moving further to the left, internationally she remains committed to
aggressively fighting terrorism as well as preserving US military power and
interests.
A Missed Opportunity
The attacks on Paris occurred only the day before the second Democratic
presidential debate. The candidates were told that they would each have time
to deliver an opening statement directly addressing these events. If there
were ever a time to show progressive leadership in foreign affairs, this
would be it.
Unfortunately, none did. Senator Sanders stated merely that, "Together,
leading the world this country will rid our planet of this marvellous
organization called ISIS," before almost immediately turning his attention
to economic issues at home.
THE FAILURE OF THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES TO OFFER A TRULY PROGRESSIVE
RESPONSE TO THE PARIS ATTACKS PUTS THE WORLD IN FURTHER DANGER.
Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley simply echoed the established party
position of using all available means to pursue ISIS wherever they may be.
She described the group as "the leading threat of an international terror
network. It cannot be contained, it must be defeated." Despite giving lip
service to "diplomacy" and "development aid," she ultimately reaffirmed that
"American leadership is essential," and blamed Assad and Iraqis rather the
US for the rise of terrorism.
Indeed their main contrast with their Republican rivals was largely one of
language rather than policy. Each Democratic candidate refused to refer to
this as a war against "radical Islam" - preferring instead a less sweeping
framing about "radical jihadists."
Significantly, later in the debate Sanders was asked directly whether he
felt his opponent Hillary Clinton had made any mistakes as Secretary of
State. From the perspective of a "democratic socialist" he could have listed
any number of issues - ranging from her failure to support democracy in
Egypt and Honduras to her failed strategy in Libya to her seeming commitment
to putting US corporate interests over global values of human rights and
democracy. Sanders, by contrast, merely stated that he was against US backed
"regime change."
It was a clear and tragic missed opportunity to expand US progressivism
beyond its borders.
A Failed Democratic Debate
The lack of a progressive foreign policy vision at the debate shows the
broader limits of US political discourse. Whereas the government and
corporations can be criticized for the damage they do in the US, the
destruction they wreak abroad is ultimately off limits.
Ignored are the deeper causes of this problem - something that a socially
progressive and socialist perspective would be uniquely able to provide.
More than just focus on the "military threat" of ISIS, this would permit for
a larger discussion of the economic and social deprivation fueling such
extremism. It would also help to clarify to the US public the reasons for
these conditions, effectively framing corporate power and political
oligarchy as a global rather than just national problem.
This is not just good politics. It is also necessary for strengthening
national and international security. Quoting British Labour leader Corbyn,
"It's vital at a time of such tragedy and outrage not to be drawn into
responses which feed a cycle of violence and hatred."
At present, there is a failure in democratic discourse happening in the
United States. The failure of the Democratic candidates to offer a truly
progressive response to the Paris attacks puts the world in further danger.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
PETER BLOOM
Lecturer in Organization Studies, Department of People and Organisation at
The Open University
RELATED STORIES
Terrorism Serves the State
By Brian Martin, Truthout | News Analysis
Progressive Groups Call for Congress to Let Diplomacy Work
By Staff, Jewish Voice for Peace | Press Release
Paris Attacks: COP21 and the War on Terror
By Oliver Tickell, The Ecologist | News Analysis
________________________________________
Show Comments
Hide Comments
<a href="http://truthout.disqus.com/?url=ref";>View the discussion
thread.</a>
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
The Dangerously Limited Foreign Policy Discourse of the Democratic
Candidates
Thursday, 26 November 2015 00:00 By Peter Bloom, Truthout | Op-Ed
. font size Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.
. From left: Sen. Bernie Sanders, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Martin
O'Malley take the stage for the Democratic presidential debate at Drake
University in Des Moines, Iowa, November 14, 2015. The Democratic candidates
have failed to offer any truly progressive response to the Paris attacks.
(Photo: Ruth Fremson / The New York Times)
. The terrorist attacks in Paris have reverberated across the globe.
As tragic as these events were, they also provide an opportunity to change
how US leaders approach the "war on terror."
In the United States, the most recent Democratic presidential debate offered
candidates the chance to articulate a less militaristic, progressive foreign
policy vision. Their failure to do so reflects the dangerously narrow limits
of "acceptable" US political discourse.
Over the past year, the US has experienced a dramatic upsurge in progressive
politics. A key issue for both Republican and Democratic voters has been
rising economic inequality and the political influence of corporations.
From the left, Senator Bernie Sanders has challenged centrist Hillary
Clinton for the Democratic presidential nomination, calling for nothing less
than a "political revolution." As a self-proclaimed democratic socialist, he
is trying to build a broad-based popular movement to transform the country's
rigged economy by taking on the power of the billionaire class.
Progressivism at Home and Abroad?
Sanders' progressivism has failed to extend, though, to foreign policy.
Sanders has importantly called climate change the country's greatest
national security threat. Yet he has said little in depth about how his
presidency would revolutionize the United States' role in the world.
Instead he has blamed the growth of terrorism on the Iraqi invasion - which
he voted against. This critique, however, is not a substitute for a
socialist or even an informed progressive account of the reasons for 21st
century terrorism and how it can best be combatted.
When pushed to articulate such an account, he refers back to using the
military budget more effectively and having Arab countries "put more boots
on the ground." Just as worryingly, he has stated that he would continue to
deploy drone attacks, themselves responsible for killing over a 1,000
innocent civilians by some estimates.
Not surprisingly, Hillary Clinton has maintained the same hardline positions
as a candidate that she took as secretary of state. While domestically
moving further to the left, internationally she remains committed to
aggressively fighting terrorism as well as preserving US military power and
interests.
A Missed Opportunity
The attacks on Paris occurred only the day before the second Democratic
presidential debate. The candidates were told that they would each have time
to deliver an opening statement directly addressing these events. If there
were ever a time to show progressive leadership in foreign affairs, this
would be it.
Unfortunately, none did. Senator Sanders stated merely that, "Together,
leading the world this country will rid our planet of this marvellous
organization called ISIS," before almost immediately turning his attention
to economic issues at home.
The failure of the Democratic candidates to offer a truly progressive
response to the Paris attacks puts the world in further danger.
Hillary Clinton and Martin O'Malley simply echoed the established party
position of using all available means to pursue ISIS wherever they may be.
She described the group as "the leading threat of an international terror
network. It cannot be contained, it must be defeated." Despite giving lip
service to "diplomacy" and "development aid," she ultimately reaffirmed that
"American leadership is essential," and blamed Assad and Iraqis rather the
US for the rise of terrorism.
Indeed their main contrast with their Republican rivals was largely one of
language rather than policy. Each Democratic candidate refused to refer to
this as a war against "radical Islam" - preferring instead a less sweeping
framing about "radical jihadists."
Significantly, later in the debate Sanders was asked directly whether he
felt his opponent Hillary Clinton had made any mistakes as Secretary of
State. From the perspective of a "democratic socialist" he could have listed
any number of issues - ranging from her failure to support democracy in
Egypt and Honduras to her failed strategy in Libya to her seeming commitment
to putting US corporate interests over global values of human rights and
democracy. Sanders, by contrast, merely stated that he was against US backed
"regime change."
It was a clear and tragic missed opportunity to expand US progressivism
beyond its borders.
A Failed Democratic Debate
The lack of a progressive foreign policy vision at the debate shows the
broader limits of US political discourse. Whereas the government and
corporations can be criticized for the damage they do in the US, the
destruction they wreak abroad is ultimately off limits.
Ignored are the deeper causes of this problem - something that a socially
progressive and socialist perspective would be uniquely able to provide.
More than just focus on the "military threat" of ISIS, this would permit for
a larger discussion of the economic and social deprivation fueling such
extremism. It would also help to clarify to the US public the reasons for
these conditions, effectively framing corporate power and political
oligarchy as a global rather than just national problem.
This is not just good politics. It is also necessary for strengthening
national and international security. Quoting British Labour leader Corbyn,
"It's vital at a time of such tragedy and outrage not to be drawn into
responses which feed a cycle of violence and hatred."
At present, there is a failure in democratic discourse happening in the
United States. The failure of the Democratic candidates to offer a truly
progressive response to the Paris attacks puts the world in further danger.
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
Peter Bloom
Lecturer in Organization Studies, Department of People and Organisation at
The Open University
Related Stories
Terrorism Serves the State
By Brian Martin, Truthout | News AnalysisProgressive Groups Call for
Congress to Let Diplomacy Work
By Staff, Jewish Voice for Peace | Press ReleaseParis Attacks: COP21 and the
War on Terror
By Oliver Tickell, The Ecologist | News Analysis
Show Comments
